Alignment Risks from Capability-Seeking RL Training
On the map: LLM safety and security → Safety alignment, refusal and guardrails
Abstract (arXiv)
While most AI alignment research focuses on preventing models from generating explicitly harmful content, a more subtle risk arises from capability-seeking RL training in vulnerable environments. We investigate whether language models, when trained with reinforcement learning (RL) in environments with implicit loopholes, can learn to exploit these flaws to maximize reward, even without being explicitly instructed to do so. To test this, we design a suite of four diverse "vulnerability games," each presenting a structural vulnerability related to context-conditional compliance, proxy metrics, reward tampering, and self-evaluation. Our experiments show that models often learn to exploit these vulnerabilities, discovering opportunistic strategies that increase reward while sometimes preserving or even improving standard task-performance metrics. More critically, we find that these exploitative strategies are not always narrow "tricks": they can transfer in structured but limited ways, propagate from a capable teacher model to other student models through SFT, and in several cases remain more persistent when learned through RL than when distilled through SFT. Our findings show that alignment risks from capability-seeking RL training can be difficult to detect with standard performance monitoring, suggesting that future AI safety work should extend beyond content moderation to auditing and securing training environments, reward mechanisms, and evaluation channels. Code is available at https://github.com/YujunZhou/Capability-seeking-RL-risk.
Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 7 Oct 2026). Placed in Safety alignment, refusal and guardrails, one of 12 directions in LLM safety and security. Builds on 36 of its 41 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 12 Feb 2026.
Builds on
36 of 41 references.
Closest ancestors · 1
Same direction, newest first
Other references · 35
- 2023GPT-4 Technical Reportcited by 18,132
- 2023LLaMA: Open and Efficient Foundation Language Modelscited by 13,958
- 2024DeepSeekMath: Pushing the Limits of Mathematical Reasoning in Open Language Modelscited by 8,851
- 2024LiveCodeBench: Holistic and Contamination Free Evaluation of Large Language Models for Codecited by 1,906
- 2015Teaching Machines to Read and Comprehendcited by 1,039
- 2023Bias and Fairness in Large Language Models: A Surveycited by 626
- 2024Sleeper Agents: Training Deceptive LLMs that Persist Through Safety Trainingcited by 478
- 2024Alignment faking in large language modelscited by 316
- 2025TTRL: Test-Time Reinforcement Learningcited by 253
- 2024Sycophancy to Subterfuge: Investigating Reward-Tampering in Large Language Modelscited by 158
- 2025Multi-Agent Risks from Advanced AIcited by 150
- 2025Agentic Misalignment: How LLMs Could Be Insider Threatscited by 136
23 more
- 2023Taken out of context: On measuring situational awareness in LLMscited by 131
- 2025BIG-Bench Extra Hardcited by 123
- 2024Language Models Learn to Mislead Humans via RLHFcited by 118
- 2025Natural Emergent Misalignment from Reward Hacking in Production RLcited by 111
- 2017AI Safety Gridworldscited by 108
- 2025Large Language Models Often Know When They Are Being Evaluatedcited by 105
- 2023Scheming AIs: Will AIs fake alignment during training in order to get power?cited by 90
- 2025Subliminal Learning: Language models transmit behavioral traits via hidden signals in datacited by 89
- 2025Stress Testing Deliberative Alignment for Anti-Scheming Trainingcited by 71
- 2025School of Reward Hacks: Hacking harmless tasks generalizes to misaligned behavior in LLMscited by 58
- 2025One Token to Fool LLM-as-a-Judgecited by 56
- 2024On Targeted Manipulation and Deception when Optimizing LLMs for User Feedbackcited by 45
- 2025Evolving Language Models without Labels: Majority Drives Selection, Novelty Promotes Variationcited by 44
- 2025On the Trustworthiness of Generative Foundation Models: Guideline, Assessment, and Perspectivecited by 39
- 2025Evaluating Frontier Models for Stealth and Situational Awarenesscited by 30
- 2025Steering Evaluation-Aware Language Models to Act Like They Are Deployedcited by 30
- 2024LabSafety Bench: Benchmarking LLMs on Safety Issues in Scientific Labscited by 24
- 2024HonestLLM: Toward an Honest and Helpful Large Language Modelcited by 17
- 2025In-Training Defenses against Emergent Misalignment in Language Modelscited by 14
- 2025Spilling the Beans: Teaching LLMs to Self-Report Their Hidden Objectivescited by 13
- 2025Recontextualization Mitigates Specification Gaming without Modifying the Specificationcited by 11
- 2025Breach in the Shield: Unveiling the Vulnerabilities of Large Language Modelscited by 4
- 2025Winning at All Cost: A Small Environment for Eliciting Specification Gaming Behaviors in Large Language Modelscited by 1
Built on by
Not cited yet.
Similar, not cited
Close in wording, no citation either way
- 2023The Alignment Problem in Context
- 2026Reinforcement Learning Towards Broadly and Persistently Beneficial Models
- 2025Safety Alignment of LMs via Non-cooperative Games
- 2025Mirage or Method? How Model-Task Alignment Induces Divergent RL Conclusions
- 2025Agentic Reinforcement Learning for Search Misaligns Instruction-Tuning
- 2025Breaking the Safety-Capability Tradeoff: Reinforcement Learning with Verifiable Rewards Maintains Safety Guardrails in LLMs
- 2026Reward Hacking in Language Model Agents: Revisiting AI Safety Gridworlds
- 2026How LLM Task-Adaptation Reshapes Alignment: A Multi-dimensional Study of Behavioral and Representational Drift